presentation

On the Relationship Between and

Theory, Measurement, and Early Evidence for the Psychological Mechanism

Dissertation Defense

Wednesday, 12 November 2025

Rizqy Amelia Zein

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Mario Gollwitzer

Theoretical Background

Barbour’s Taxonomy (Barbour, 1966, 1998, 2000, 2002) proposes that people can perceive and as:
- Conflict: inherently incompatible, then cannot mentally coexist.
- Independence: separate domains or non-overlapping magisteria (Gould, 1999)
- Dialogue: distinct but incomplete without each other.
- Integration: a unified belief system with no categorical distinction.
Assumptions: The qualitative distinctions between taxons are delicate, not firm and they are situation-dependent characteristics (Barbour, 2002).
Perceptions of the relationship between and is hereby defined as a mental schema for processing potentially competing explanations and is expected to predict how people interpret, evaluate, and respond to situations in which both scientific and religious explanations are salient.
For brevity, I will refer to this construct as ‘mental models’ later on.

Research Questions

Does Barbour’s taxonomy exist in reality? If so, why do people differ in their mental models?

The goal is to illustrate the underlying psychological mechanisms responsible for the formation of the mental models.

Pillar 1: Theory

If it exists, how can one systematically operationalize it for empirical research?

The goal is to quantify qualitative distinctions of the mental models.

Pillar 2: Measure

Then, what does it predict?

The goal is to investigate whether the mental models can predict how people evaluate the utility of specific scientific and religious explanations.

Pillar 3: Mechanistic Testing

Manuscript : Theory

Some Insights

Is the taxonomy real?

There is handful of evidence from qualitative studies for Barbour’s taxonomy, mostly in learning sciences, but they are, by and large, fragmented.
Mental models have different names, but the most straightforward are suggested by Yasri, Arthur, Smith, & Mancy (2013), which are Conflict, Compartment (= Independence), Complementary (= Dialogue) and Consonance (= Integration).
Context-Switch is the newest addition (Shipman, Brickhouse, Dagher, & Letts, 2002; Taber, Billingsley, Riga, & Newdick, 2011; Yasri & Mancy, 2012), which represents a pragmatic strategy of an underlying conflict belief by flexibly switching between and depending on the social situations, cues or demands.

Why people differ?

Cognitive elements: cognitive flexibility, epistemic belief.
Motivational elements: social identity, political ideology, moral belief, epistemic needs and motives.
Differences in cognitive and motivational aspects here pave the way for explanatory coexistence (Legare, Evans, Rosengren, & Harris, 2012; Legare & Gelman, 2008).
Explanatory coexistence can occur because and have differential utility (Davoodi & Lombrozo, 2022) and thus are processed differently (Van Leeuwen, 2014).

We illustrate how cognitive and motivational elements determine how people adopt these mental models in a simplified version of the flowchart we presented in the article. As we can see here, people can only adopt non-conflict beliefs when they are willing to be cognitively flexible and motivated to reconcile science and religion. By then, they would utilize explanatory coexistence, and depending on the level of integration they desire, they could adopt compartment which is at the surface, complementary which in the middle level or consonance views which is in the deepest level of integration. Those whose cognitive and motivational elements do not satisfy these conditions would instead adopt a conflict belief by favoring either religion or science. However, if they have no specific preference, they would adopt a context-switch view.

Manuscript : Measurement

Rationale

There have been some efforts to operationalize Barbour’s taxonomy (K. A. Johnson et al., 2019; K. A. Johnson, Okun, & Moon, 2023; Marin & Lindeman, 2021; Woolley et al., 2023; Yasri et al., 2013), but they did not satisfy Barbour’s most important assumption: delicate boundaries between the mental models.
One way to operationalize the taxonomy is to assume that mental models do not only differ in their kind but also in their degree of conflict compatibility.

Rationale

There have been some efforts to operationalize Barbour’s taxonomy (K. A. Johnson et al., 2019; K. A. Johnson et al., 2023; Marin & Lindeman, 2021; Woolley et al., 2023; Yasri et al., 2013), but they did not satisfy Barbour’s most important assumption: delicate boundaries between the mental models.
One way to operationalize the taxonomy is to assume that mental models do not only differ in their kind but also in their degree of conflict compatibility.

We developed a novel measure that mirrors theoretical and empirical descriptions of mental models
..and assumed that people would respond to the scale items by following an unfolding (Thurstone) response process (Carter, Lake, & Zickar, 2010; Roberts, 2018).
We performed one pilot and two studies across three (N = 2,920) and one sample (N = 1,197).
Since mental models are culturally embedded (C. Johnson, Thigpen, & Funk, 2020; Rios & Aveyard, 2019; Rios & Roth, 2020), the scale might contain systematic cultural bias, so DIF analysis was a necessity.
Discriminant, convergent, and criterion-related validity were also examined.

Results

Scale data in four samples showed that the construct is unidimensional and bipolar.
- ..but the Context-Switch was closer to compatibility than conflict, unlike previously hypothesized.
Generalized Graded Unfolding Model (GGUM) fitted better to the data than Generalized Partial Credit Model (GPCM - Likert) in all samples.
participants perceived more conflict than at same trait level by ~0.4SD (ETSSD = 0.419).
The construct was conceptually distinct from Belief in Science (Farias, Newheiser, Kahane, & de Toledo, 2013) (\(\rho^2\) = .46 , .25 ) and similar to Leicht, Sharp, LaBouff, Zarzeczna, & Elsdon-Baker (2021) scale (\(\rho^2\) = .57 .54 ), but sufficient unshared variance still left.
Religiosity, religious identity, and religious upbringing were associated with higher compatibility perceptions in both and samples.

Manuscript : Mechanistic Testing

Rationale & Theory

Goal System Theory (GST)

and are means to achieve epistemic goals (i.e., “to explain why things happen”).
GST predicts that presenting scientific and religious explanations together (as multiple means) leads to reduced perceived utility of both compared to presenting them alone (i.e., the dilution effect, Kruglanski, Pierro, & Sheveland (2011); Bélanger, Schori-Eyal, Pica, Kruglanski, & Lafrenière (2015)).
Religious people relied on and moderately, but non-religious people highly relied on (Jackson et al., 2024).
Therefore, the number of available (scientific and/or religious) explanations determines how epistemically valuable people perceive these explanations to be.

Motivated Reasoning

Prior beliefs play a more important role in determining how epistemically useful people perceive (scientific and/or religious) explanations to be.
People engage in biased reasoning, preferring explanations that are consistent with their prior beliefs (Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Kunda, 1990).
Moderate reliance on both and probably reflects underlying non-conflict beliefs (i.e., compartment, context-switch, complementary, and consonance).
High reliance on either or possibly reflects an underlying conflict belief.

Design

A within-subject experiment (N = 719)
Participants were randomly presented with one (scientific or religious), two (always one scientific and one religious), and four (always two scientific and two religious) of three existential-related incidents (Polt, 1999; Sullivan, Landau, & Kay, 2012): flood, war, and climate crisis.
The order of both incidents and number of explanations was counterbalanced so that each condition only appeared once (Latin square design).
Then, asked participants to rate each explanation presented to them for their epistemic utility, and measured their perceptions of the relationship between and , and religiosity.

Results

No main effect of n of explanation and no interaction effect between n of explanation and type of explanation, vs. .

Results

No main effect of n of explanation and no interaction effect between n of explanation and type of explanation, vs. .
Conflict believers rated religious explanations as less useful than non-conflict believers (d = -0.71). No differences of how scientific explanations was rated between conflict and non-conflict believers (d = 0.001).

Results

No main effect of n of explanation and no interaction effect between n of explanation and type of explanation, vs. .
Conflict believers rated religious explanations as less useful than non-conflict believers (d = -0.71). No differences of how scientific explanations was rated between conflict and non-conflict believers (d = 0.001).
Non-religious rated religious explanations lower than religious participants (d = -1.02). Scientific explanations were rated similarly, so religiosity did not matter (d = 0.09).

Some Takeaways

Conclusion

Manuscript : People’s perceptions on the relationship between and emerge through identifiable cognitive and motivational processes.
Manuscript : These perceptions are mapped on to different regions of a unidimensional, bipolar construct, that is culturally embedded.
- But Context-Switch is closer to compatibility than conflict.
Manuscript : This general perception of the relationship between and only predicts how people evaluate the utility of religious explanations, but not scientific explanations.

Contributions

Offering a systematic operationalization of Barbour’s taxonomy (Barbour, 1998, 2002).
Providing an integrative, yet descriptive, psychological mechanism underlying the mental models and early evidence for what they predict.

Limitations

No examination of boundary conditions only possible with computational modelling.
Only focused on the general perceptions – did not tap into domain/issue/topic-specific perceptions (Leicht et al., 2021).

Thank you! ✨

Where to go from here?

Do mental models predict how people change/update their scientific/religious beliefs?
Are models stable characteristics or situation-dependent? What are the boundary conditions? (e.g., uncertainty? death-related events? threatened social identity?)
Could the models play a role on people’s decision making on various aspects of their life? (e.g., public-health/sustainability-related decision making, etc.)
Could science communication strategy be personalized based on one’s preferred model? If so, would it be practically useful?

Project Supported by:

References

Alanazi, F. H. (2025). Between astronomy and religion: dialogue in the Saudi primary science classroom. British Journal of Religious Education, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2025.2511121

Baker, J. O. (2012). Public perceptions of incompatibility between “science and religion.” Public Understanding of Science, 21(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511434908

Barbour, I. G. (1966). Issues in Science and Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Retrieved from http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1974993

Barbour, I. G. (1998). Religion and Science: Historical and contemporary issues. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Barbour, I. G. (2000). When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Barbour, I. G. (2002). On Typologies for Relating Science and Religion. Zygon®, 37(2), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/0591-2385.00432

Basel, N., Harms, U., Prechtl, H., Weiß, T., & Rothgangel, M. (2014). Students’ arguments on the science and religion issue: the example of evolutionary theory and Genesis. Journal of Biological Education, 48(4), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.849286

Bélanger, J. J., Schori-Eyal, N., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A. W., & Lafrenière, M.-A. (2015). The “more is less” effect in equifinal structures: Alternative means reduce the intensity and quality of motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.05.005

Borgerding, L. A., Deniz, H., & Anderson, E. S. (2017). Evolution acceptance and epistemological beliefs of college biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 493–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21374

Carter, N. T., Lake, C. J., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Toward Understanding the Psychology of Unfolding. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(4), 511–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01283.x

Davoodi, T., & Lombrozo, T. (2022). Explaining the existential: Scientific and religious explanations play different functional roles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(5), 1199. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001129

Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584.

Dodick, J., Dayan, A., & Orion, N. (2010). Philosophical Approaches of Religious Jewish Science Teachers Toward the Teaching of “Controversial” Topics in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1521–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903518060

Ecklund, E. H., & Park, J. Z. (2009). Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientists? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(2), 276–292. https://doi.org/10/dpdg7q

Ecklund, E. H., Park, J. Z., & Sorrell, K. L. (2011). Scientists Negotiate Boundaries Between Religion and Science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(3), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01586.x

Elsdon-Baker, F. (2015). Creating creationists: The influence of “issues framing” on our understanding of public perceptions of clash narratives between evolutionary science and belief. Public Understanding of Science, 24(4), 422–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514563015

Fahrurrosi, L., Sholihah, S., Hamid, A., Fadhilah, F. P., & Marzuki, N. B. (2025). Implementation of The Integration of Islam and Science in the Context of Islamic Boarding School. Al Irsyad: Jurnal Studi Islam, 4(2), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.54150/alirsyad.v4i2.757

Farias, M., Newheiser, A.-K., Kahane, G., & de Toledo, Z. (2013). Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1210–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.008

Fysh, R., & Lucas, K. B. (1998). Religious beliefs in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 28(4), 399–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461507

Gould, S. J. (1999). Non-Overlapping Magisteria. Skeptical Inquirer, (July/August), 55–61.

Hanley, P., Bennett, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2014). The Inter-relationship of Science and Religion: A typology of engagement. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1210–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.853897

Hill, J. P., Jones, S. H., Kaden, T., & Catto, R. (2019). Survey-based Research on Science and Religion: A Review and Critique. In Science, Beliefs and Society: International Perspectives on Religion, Non-Religion and the Public Understanding of Science. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008). College students’ perceptions of the theory of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 395–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20233

Jackson, J. C., Jasko, K., Abrams, S., Atkinson, T., Balkcom, E., Kruglanski, A., … Halberstadt, J. (2024). Religious people view both science and religion as less epistemically valuable than non-religious people view science. Religion, Brain & Behavior. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/2153599X.2024.2363750

Johnson, C., Thigpen, C. L., & Funk, C. (2020, August 26). On the Intersection of Science and Religion. Retrieved February 9, 2022, from Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project website: https://www.pewforum.org/?p=33454

Johnson, K. A., Moon, J. W., Okun, M. A., Scott, M. J., O’Rourke, H. P., Hook, J. N., & Cohen, A. B. (2019). Science, God, and the cosmos: Science both erodes (via logic) and promotes (via awe) belief in God. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 84, 103826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103826

Johnson, K. A., Okun, M. A., & Moon, J. W. (2023). The interaction of faith and science mindsets predicts perceptions of the relationship between religion and science. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 4, 100113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cresp.2023.100113

Kaden, T. (2025). The Sociological Study of Science and Religion and the Invisible Religion: Conditions of Possibility for the “Conflict Thesis.” Human Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-025-09817-x

Konnemann, C., Asshoff, R., & Hammann, M. (2016). Insights Into the Diversity of Attitudes Concerning Evolution and Creation: A Multidimensional Approach. Science Education, 100(4), 673–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21226

Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Sheveland, A. (2011). How many roads lead to Rome? Equifinality set-size and commitment to goals and means. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3), 344–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.780

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Legare, C. H., Evans, E. M., Rosengren, K. S., & Harris, P. L. (2012). The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations Across Cultures and Development. Child Development, 83(3), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x

Legare, C. H., & Gelman, S. A. (2008). Bewitchment, biology, or both: the co-existence of natural and supernatural explanatory frameworks across development. Cognitive Science, 32(4), 607–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066766

Leicht, C., Sharp, C. A., LaBouff, J. P., Zarzeczna, N., & Elsdon-Baker, F. (2021). Content Matters: Perceptions of the Science-Religion Relationship. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 0(0), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2021.2003111

Longest, K. C., & Uecker, J. E. (2021). It All Depends on What You Want to Believe: How Young Adults Navigate Religion and Science. Review of Religious Research, 63(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10/gm5nbg

Mansour, N. (2011). Science teachers’ views of science and religion vs. the Islamic perspective: Conflicting or compatible? Science Education, 95(2), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20418

Mansour, N. (2015). Science Teachers’ Views and Stereotypes of Religion, Scientists and Scientific Research: A call for scientist–science teacher partnerships to promote inquiry-based learning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1767–1794. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1049575

Marin, P., & Lindeman, M. (2021). How do people perceive the relationship between science and religion? The roles of epistemic and ontological cognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(5), 1146–1157. https://doi.org/10/gm5n7f

Pearce, J., Stones, A., Reiss, M. J., & Mujtaba, T. (2021). “Science is purely about the truth so I don’t think you could compare it to non-truth versus the truth.” Students’ perceptions of religion and science, and the relationship(s) between them: religious education and the need for epistemic literacy. British Journal of Religious Education, 43(2), 174–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2019.1635434

Polt, R. F. H. (1999). Heidegger: an introduction. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.

Rios, K., & Aveyard, M. (2019). Science-religion compatibility beliefs across Middle Eastern and American young adult samples: The role of cross-cultural exposure. Public Understanding of Science, 28(8), 949–957. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869815

Rios, K., & Roth, Z. C. (2020). Is “me-search” necessarily less rigorous research? Social and personality psychologists’ stereotypes of the psychology of religion. Self and Identity, 19(7), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1690035

Riwanda, A., Abdurrohim, Widiyati, E., & Pranajaya, S. A. (2025). Science and Religion Integration in Indonesian Islamic Senior High Schools: Analyzing Teachers’ Pedagogical Practices. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-025-00648-x

Roberts, J. S. (2018). Generalized Graded Unfolding Model. In W. J. Van Der Linden, Handbook of Item Response Theory (Vol. 1, pp. 369–390). Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Scheitle, C. P. (2011). U.S. College Students’ Perception of Religion and Science: Conflict, Collaboration, or Independence? A Research Note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(1), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01558.x

Scheitle, C. P., & Corcoran, K. E. (2021). Endorsement of Religion–Science Conflict as an Expression of Group Solidarity among Graduate Students in the Sciences. Sociology of Religion, 83(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srab003

Shipman, H. L., Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z., & Letts, W. J. (2002). Changes in student views of religion and science in a college astronomy course. Science Education, 86(4), 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10029

Stones, A., Pearce, J., Reiss, M. J., & Mujtaba, T. (2020). Students’ Perceptions of Religion and Science, and How They Relate: the Effects of a Classroom Intervention. Religious Education, 115(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2020.1769537

Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., & Kay, A. C. (2012). Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Existential Threat: Insights from Paul Tillich. Social Cognition, 30(6), 734–757. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.734

Taber, K. S., Billingsley, B., Riga, F., & Newdick, H. (2011). Secondary students’ responses to perceptions of the relationship between science and religion: Stances identified from an interview study. Science Education, 95(6), 1000–1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20459

Taşkın, Ö. (2014). An exploratory examination of Islamic values in science education: Islamization of science teaching and learning via constructivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(4), 855–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-013-9553-0

Vaidyanathan, B., Johnson, D. R., Prickett, P. J., & Howard Ecklund, E. (2016). Rejecting the conflict narrative: American Jewish and Muslim views on science and religion. Social Compass, 63(4), 478–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037768616664473

Van Leeuwen, N. (2014). Religious credence is not factual belief. Cognition, 133(3), 698–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.015

Woolley, M., Bowie, R. A., Hulbert, S., Thomas, C., Riordan, J.-P., & Revell, L. (2023). Teachers’ perspectives on the relationship between secondary school departments of science and religious education: Independence or mutual enrichment? The Curriculum Journal, 35(3), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.233

Yasri, P., Arthur, S., Smith, M. U., & Mancy, R. (2013). Relating Science and Religion: An Ontology of Taxonomies and Development of a Research Tool for Identifying Individual Views. Science & Education, 22(10), 2679–2707. https://doi.org/10/f5d67m

Yasri, P., & Mancy, R. (2012). Understanding Student Approaches to Learning Evolution in the Context of their Perceptions of the Relationship between Science and Religion. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 24–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.715315

Yasri, P., & Mancy, R. (2016). Student positions on the relationship between evolution and creation: What kinds of changes occur and for what reasons? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21302

List of Appendices

Original Flowchart

Revised Flowchart

Qualitative Studies Barbour’s Taxonomy

Learning Sciences

Basel, Harms, Prechtl, Weiß, & Rothgangel (2014); Borgerding, Deniz, & Anderson (2017); Dodick, Dayan, & Orion (2010); Fysh & Lucas (1998); Hokayem & BouJaoude (2008); Mansour (2011); Mansour (2015); Pearce, Stones, Reiss, & Mujtaba (2021); Scheitle (2011); Shipman et al. (2002); Stones, Pearce, Reiss, & Mujtaba (2020); Taber et al. (2011); Taşkın (2014); Yasri & Mancy (2012); Yasri & Mancy (2016); Alanazi (2025); Fahrurrosi, Sholihah, Hamid, Fadhilah, & Marzuki (2025); Riwanda, Abdurrohim, Widiyati, & Pranajaya (2025); Woolley et al. (2023)

Sociology, Religious Studies

Baker (2012); Ecklund, Park, & Sorrell (2011); Ecklund & Park (2009); Elsdon-Baker (2015); Hanley, Bennett, & Ratcliffe (2014); Hill, Jones, Kaden, & Catto (2019); Kaden (2025); Konnemann, Asshoff, & Hammann (2016); Longest & Uecker (2021); Scheitle & Corcoran (2021); Vaidyanathan, Johnson, Prickett, & Howard Ecklund (2016)

Dissertation Defense

Rizqy Amelia Zein

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Mario Gollwitzer

Chair of Social Psychology, LMU Munich

Theoretical Background

Research Questions

Manuscript : Theory

Some Insights

Is the taxonomy real?

Why people differ?

Manuscript : Measurement

Rationale

Rationale

Results

Manuscript : Mechanistic Testing

Rationale & Theory

Goal System Theory (GST)

Motivated Reasoning

Design

Results

Results

Results

Some Takeaways

Conclusion

Contributions

Limitations

Thank you! ✨

Project Supported by:

References

List of Appendices

Manuscript 1

Manuscript 2

Manuscript 2

Manuscript 3

Original Flowchart

Revised Flowchart

Qualitative Studies Barbour’s Taxonomy

Learning Sciences

Sociology, Religious Studies

Scale Items

Leicht et al (2021)

Correlation Table Study 2 DE

Correlation Table Study 2 USA

Model Fit Pilot + Study 1

Model Fit Study 2

Item Location Study 2

ESSD Study 2

PCA Plot Pilot (DE)

PCA Plot Study 1 (DE)

PCA Plot Study 2 DE

Scale Perceived Utility

Correlation Table

Model Parameter n_exp * type_exp * conflict

Simple Simple Effects n_exp * type_exp * conflict

Model Parameter n_exp * type_exp * religiosity

Simple Simple Effects n_exp * type_exp * religiosity